IMO Yanis is quite right. You can watch this video for a deeper explanation of the rationale behind Trump's tariffs:
What Trump is trying to create is essentially an unequal playing field. He's leveraging America's status as the biggest consumer nation to create a trade system that excludes anyone who refuses to join it. American products don't have to be competitive with Chinese ones if the US and its vassal states either tariff Chinese products massively (e.g. EVs) or simply refuse to buy them (e.g. Huawei). There are several issues with his plan due to problems facing the US that were not present with during the previous attempts by the US to shape the global trade order (i.e. Bretton-Woods, Nixon shock, Plaza accord).
First, as the Money and Macro video pointed out, one of the biggest benefits to join the US-led order was a security guarantee. That is now far less appealing after Trump's abandonment of Ukraine and his threats to annex Canada, Greenland, and Mexico. This is an absolutely crucial pillar of this strategy, and it gives me the sense that rather than having a comprehensive national strategy, Trump is separately pursuing national security and economic strategies which really should not and cannot be separated.
Second, the deal Trump presents is essentially Plaza Accord 2.0 (PA2) to the rest of the world. In order to preserve access to the US consumer market, trading partners will be asked to raise their own currency valuations thus making their exports less competitive and/or move manufacturing to the US. The Plaza Accord 1.0 (PA1) already caused significant harm to many other nations' industries, so countries involved in PA1 have mostly been sucked dry already, while those who were not involved who have significant industries (the behemoth here is of course China) are unlikely to be enticed by the security guarantees, especially given how much it's been weakened by Trump's own doing. It's hard to say if the PA1 really worked anyway. Japan's failures IMO has more to do with their inability to catch onto emerging industries than anything else, as they maintained their dominant positions in the industries they were already dominant in and their trade deficit with the US did not significantly change.
Third, the US is no longer the sole economic superpower in the world. China's response thus far suggests that it's digging in for a fight. In my assessment, this is the true beginning of Cold War 2. Before they were skirmishes, limited to gradually broadening sectors, this is now full-spectrum non-kinetic warfare. To this end, I believe that China will do what Yanis suggests, which is to rebalance the economy to increase consumption. Production can no longer rely on external demand, and seismic changes will be needed. Popping the property bubble in recent years IMO is in preparation for such a move. Stimulus measures cannot be directed toward unproductive asset bubbles like what happened in Japan, it will have to be directed at high tech products that boost a nation's strength.
This is just the beginning, let's see what moves each side will make in the years that follow. The best grand strategy IMO will always be the same, focusing on strengthening oneself rather than damaging the opponent. The side that invests the most into its own system and citizens with the best efficiency will win out in the end.
